Ms Emily O'Reilly:

I would like to make some comments on my annual report for 2011. In overall terms, 2011 was the busiest year for my office since its establishment in 1984 with 3,602 valid complaints received, which was a marginal decrease from the 2010 record high of 3,727. The total number of cases dealt with in 2011 was 4,420, which was an increase of 38% on 2010 and my office dealt with 11,541 inquiries, which was an increase of 23% on 2010.

In 2010, 61% of cases were received and dealt with in fewer than three months, which was up from the equivalent of 47% in 2010. Our increased productivity was achieved as a result of a major organisational review which was completed in early 2011 leading to a more efficient and effective operational model. I explained the detail of that change management process in my annual report. In terms of the breakdown of the valid complaints received in 2011, 46.6% related to the Civil Service, 27.7% related to local authorities, just about one-quarter related to the HSE, 1.5% related to An Post and 0.1% related to my separate statutory role under the Disability Act 2005. The Civil Service total of 1,670 included 1,135 complaints against the Department of Social Protection, which comprised just over 30% of the overall number of complaints received by the office in 2011.

In my introduction to the annual report, I reflected on my office's role in dealing with complaints against public bodies prompted by the consequences of the economic downturn. Needless to say, it is a matter for the Government to make difficult high-end fiscal policy decisions, which can mean that at a local level, services or benefits are either abolished or reduced, and it is not the role of the Ombudsman to interfere in such decisions. I do, however, have a legitimate role in examining how such decisions are implemented when a complainant comes to me after having been adversely affected. I am of the view that it is unacceptable if cutbacks are not communicated at all, communicated in a confused manner or implemented in an apparently unfair or arbitrary way.

To give a practical example if, for example, a long-running scheme is closed down at short notice, I do not think a public body could treat people who had already applied for such a scheme and had submitted valid applications in the same way as people who had not submitted applications before the decision was announced. In such cases, applicants have acted in good faith and have a legitimate expectation that their applications will be considered in the normal way having regard to the published eligibility criteria. Furthermore, I do not think it acceptable for public bodies to seek to achieve savings by stealth by, for example, arbitrarily raising the bar in terms of eligibility criteria where discretion is available to grant or deny a particular allowance. Decisions must be made based on clear-cut published criteria and individual decisions to deny a particular allowance must be fully explained and made in a manner consistent with the relevant criteria.

In addition, where a public body has discretion available to it, the blanket fettering of the exercise of that discretion so as to deny an allowance or an opportunity to mitigate a penalty is not only unacceptable but would amount to maladministration. Cutbacks can also lead to the introduction of a prioritisation system, formal or informal, to cope with limited resources. When this happens, people should be told that this is the case and have it explained to them, including the reasons for the system and the guiding principles determining any prioritisation of one applicant or beneficiary over another. I do not propose to go through in detail the individual cases outlined in the annual report as I hope they are self-explanatory but if members have any questions on its contents, I will be happy to deal with them later.

I would like to make some comments on my relationship with this committee. I take this opportunity to underline how pivotal I see my office's relationship with this committee. The Office of the Ombudsman is a creature of Parliament and has a statutory duty to report to the Houses of the Oireachtas annually and in respect of investigations and special reports. In order to fulfil the inter-relationship, it is of the utmost importance that there is a follow-through at parliamentary level when the Ombudsman submits a report. This committee now provides a formal avenue whereby such reports can be given due consideration and debate while at the same time respecting the statutory independence of the Office of the Ombudsman in carrying out its complaint examination function.

I would characterise the relationship of the committee with the Ombudsman as that of a "critical friend". We offer each other mutual respect but we are not afraid to say what needs to be said if the situation demands it. I also acknowledge the committee's stated determination to carry out its work in a non-partisan fashion by setting political allegiances aside, which is also crucial. The committee's role in accepting petitions is now getting off the ground and I have arranged for officials from my office to engage with the committee's secretariat in order to agree operational procedures with the committee in that context. This will cover such matters as the referral of complaints from the committee to my office, if appropriate, and the feedback process when my office completes its examination of such complaints. We also need to avoid duplication and overlap in carrying out our respective complaint examination functions. I can assure the committee that my office will bring its long experience to bear in assisting the committee in its vetting and handling of petitions in every way possible either formally or informally.

Finally, I would like to inform the committee that I hope to bring a special report to it in the coming weeks under section 6(5) of the Ombudsman Act. I hope the committee will understand that I am not in a position to discuss it today as the report is not yet finalised but when laid before the Oireachtas, I would welcome the opportunity to reappear before the committee to discuss it in detail and to answer any questions it may have.